Aaaahhh--the rest of the story--thank you! I think we can now understand where Ghost 9.x 'failed' (sorry--take this in the right way, user error )--and maybe the arguement for why the DOS version of Ghost, at least in this case, may be the better option (or, at least, using the correct procedure when using Ghost 9.x)!

So here goes:

Quote:

Computers are dumb, but they have good memory. It's a little silly to expect the user to maintain the same kind of registry of what is where when a computer running a proper OS can display that information.

You're exactly right--computers are dumb--they can not fathom what we 'wetware' have in mind for them!

This is a common problem and it effects anyone using Win-NT based OS's with 'sticky' drive letters--both Ghost 2003 and Ghost 9.x will choke if you install a HDD on a live system that gets to 'see' the HDD after booting.

Quote:

We're still talking about a stupid assumption that Windows XP and/or Ghost makes that "R: drive now is R: drive forever and always" This doesn't apply if you're restoring a system drive in a third-party computer.

There it is

-- as you said, it was assigned a drive letter based on the 'third-party computer' that you installed that HDD on. Your current live WinXP OS was protecting itself from having another operational OS being installed. There was no way for the 'third-party computer' to know that you were going to take that HDD out and install it on another system vs try to boot a second installed OS on the same 'third-party computer'.

Okay, you Ghost 9.x users--I do not have a Ghost 9.x user manual--how do they say to handle this situation? Here's the outline for the Windows Ghost 2003 interface version:

As I said above--this is probably the best arguement for using the DOS based Ghost 2003 instead of the 'hot imaging' and 'hot restore' of the Windows based Ghost 9.x--but, I suspect there is a procedure for doing just this 'correctly' using Ghost 9.x.

Betting you are supposed to shut down your system, install the HDD, boot with the 'Recovery Ghost 9.x CD', and restore the image to the added HDD, and then shut down, remove the HDD, and then reboot your system, and install the newly imaged HDD to the other system. Am I close?

A few more comments:

Quote:

Even if I was NEVER able to restore the MBR, I still had ALL my files on the disk, and a repair install, or a fresh XP install + file copy would have gotten me up and running with ALL my files

You would have had all those files still--if you had not accidentally overwritten them. That's an unfortunate down side to the learning curve in the DOS OS environment. I won't argue the point you make that Symantec has not made the use of DOS Ghost a easy, user-friendly program. You are correct--it does not warn you about overwriting existing files. Could it?--probably. And could it use long file names--I don't know about that one. It seems to be pretty stuck in the DOS 8.3 naming convention. It is well hidden, but it does in the user manual mention that it will append the xxxxx

00x

.ghs to the file name.

I think Symantec has always made the assumption that the users of Ghost are better versed in the DOS OS environment than they really are.

Quote:

I think what I was doing was reasonable. I only have one laptop hard drive, and one laptop IDE to regular IDE adapter. If I can make an image of a CD, then burn it to another CD, I should be able to do the same with a hard drive.

What we consider logical and reasonable--may not match up with the requirements of the OS and how it communicates with the HDD's we attach to the system. The CD is not assigned a drive letter--it only stores data--unlike the HDD that is assigned a drive letter--as well as stores data.

Quote:

fixboot and fixmbr didn't do a thing in the recovery console.

Right! If you read the information carefully about the 'Kawecki's Trick', you will see that the WinXP's 'fdisk' in the recovery console will not work. It has to be the Win98 or WinMe 'fdisk' if you want the volume designation overwritten so WinXP is forced to re-assign drive letters.

ADDED LATER:

Many mistakenly hope that Ghost imaging can be used to migrate their OS from one partition to another on the same machine--doesn't work that way!

And many hope that Ghost will allow them to transfer their OS on one machine to another simply by restoring the image from one machine to another--doesn't work that way, either!

Since they are so very different, I wonder if Ghost 2003 can reside alongside Ghost 9.0 on a PC with a single XP Pro O/S.

I've seen in other posts that you can have either the Windows Ghost 2003 or Ghost 9.x--but not both on the same system. I guess if you try to install one and the other is already present, it uninstalls the other for you.

"... You are correct--it does not warn you about overwriting existing files...

NightOwl

There is a related phenomena here that folks should beware of - naming convention gone awry, i.e., when performing a weekly Norton Ghost 2003 "disk-to-image" overwrite using the same file name repeatedly, I have found on occasion that the very last segment will have the fatal error of a datestamp from the previous week due to reductions in the total volume on the source disk.

I am reluctant to merely delete any or all of the segments targeted for overwriting as I am fanatical about "tidying-up and defragging" prior to a Ghost 2003 BackUp. Instead, I use Norton WipeInfo to zap the last segment (highlighted), i.e., 8100Disk.gho, 8100D001.GHS, 8100D002.GHS ... 8100D005.GHS,

8100D006.GHS

and then doublecheck later on to ensure all segments have the same updated datestamp.

“Windows-based imaging solutions are great! (for the average home-user) .. just not as good (reliable) as DOS-based ones”:

The statement could be true, but simply asserting that it is true is not the same as providing thoughtful supporting facts and arguments – which are indeed lacking, from my perspective. I believe that the readers of this thread would appreciate the latter more than the former, so that they may formulate their own conclusion.

“DOS based-version of Ghost being more reliable”:

It’s outstanding that you have had excellent success in using DOS-based imaging in about 24 instances. It does not follow, however, that your success would have been any less outstanding if you had been using a Windows-based imaging solution instead. Being intellectually honest, don’t you agree?

“I think we will continue to see problems such as the one which started this thread proliferate with Windows-based imaging”:

Well, looking back to the days of Drive Image 7.0 through today, the prediction certainly doesn’t seem to be supported. Don’t you concur?

“Do you think Amazon.com or E-bay would use a ‘live’ imaging solution”:

Yes, of course! To whom do you think the Symantec LiveState Recovery Advanced Server (http://sea.symantec.com/content/displaypdf.cfm?pdfid=35) is being sold? The companion product, Symantec LiveState Recovery Manager, “provides centralized, policy-based system and data protection management for data centers, distributed computing environments, and remote locations. With a consolidated view of enterprise-wide backups, IT administrators can monitor thousands of remote systems and quickly resolve problems using comprehensive reporting to maintain information availability.”

Kind regards,Pleonasm

P.S.: It's a sincere pleasure to interact on this forum with others who are so very insightful and considerate.

FWIW - I would never use a Windows-based solution to image any "mission-critical" applications. Do you think Amazon.com or E-bay would use a "live" imaging solution. Seems like a sure-fire way to lose you job. For home-use, it might be okay, because the downside is less steep, and the average home-user uses *no* imaging solution, anyway ..

I don't know much about the 'server' side of things--but I've seen reference to 'hot backups' using 'shadow copy' by IT folks on servers.

Also, when you use the WinXP Backup program to do a 'System State' backup--it shows in one of the info screens that it is using 'Shadow Copy' to back up the System State.

This backup, to my knowledge, is the only 'full' registry backup available within Windows, and it's occurring in 'hot, real time'.

Well, we all know what opinions are worth. So I will give you something better: my personal *experience*. Of the two-dozen (or so) images I've restores, not one gave me a problem. I did run into the naming-convention problem mentioned earlier (DOS 8.3 file limitation), but never needed to restore that image. So, I would have to say, in my *experience*, DOS-based imaging is 100% effective. (I'm talking *restores* here.)

For Windows-based, I don't know, cuz I've never used it. But I would say "something less than DOS-based imaging".

Re:

"The statement could be true, but simply asserting that it is true is not the same as providing thoughtful supporting facts and arguments – which are indeed lacking, from my perspective. I believe that the readers of this thread would appreciate the latter more than the former, so that they may formulate their own conclusion."

That's what this thread is all about. We are sharing are *experiences*. Obviously you can provide no hard data that supports Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging. I believe the casual reader of this thread will be able to make an intelligent decision regarding which method best meets their needs.

I feel that the user who is more interested in *reliability* will adopt/maintain the DOS-based method, and the user who prefers EASE-OF-USE will use the Windows-based solution.

RE:

"It’s outstanding that you have had excellent success in using DOS-based imaging in about 24 instances. It does not follow, however, that your success would have been any less outstanding if you had been using a Windows-based imaging solution instead. Being intellectually honest, don’t you agree?"

Well, what follows is that Windows-based imaging can't be any *more* reliable. And this is the angle we are working here: that DOS-based imaging is MORE RELIABLE than Windows-based imaging. How much more reliable? We honesty don't care.

"Well, looking back to the days of Drive Image 7.0 through today, the prediction certainly doesn’t seem to be supported. Don’t you concur?"

Oh, not at all. Like I said, being involved in this imaging game for several years now, I have reads hundreds of threads on the topic, from forums all over the Net, and it is a consistent theme that Drive Image in particular is less reliable than Ghost, which is why I'm surprised Symantec adopted it.

In the back of my mind, I kinda figured they were gonna sell a "new version" (Drive Image repackage as Ghost v9.0 ) to the consumer and then market the original Ghost product to businesses for mission critical applications, because it *is* more reliable, after jacking up the price, cuz businesses are willing to pay more than home users.

Indeed, isn't that what has occurred? Hasn't Symantec retained the ORIGINAL Ghost for the Enterprise solution? Or have they also marketed the Drive Image version for Enterprises also. Or, am I wrong? Is the "Corporate" version of Ghost now also based on Drive Image? I would be very surprised if it is.

I honestly can't believe anyone who has read more than a few dozen threads around the web on imaging programs doesn't know that nearly everyone considers Ghost more relaible than Drive Image. I mean, I thought it was common knowledge. Guess I was wrong.

Regarding the live-state back-up software, I am no expert. BUt that doesn't seem to be an "imaging" solution, but rather a data back-up solution. Does that program/utility back-up the OPERATING SYSTEM, or just data files? Either way, I' sure it's not based on Powerquest's Drive Image.

Radministrator, if I understand you correctly, [1] “we are sharing our experiences,” [2] you admit to having no experience with Windows-based imaging, and [3] you conclude that DOS-based imaging is more reliable. My intention is not to be rude, but isn’t this a rather shallow point-of-view?

You are entitled to your opinion, and I do respect it. You are not entitled, however, to assert your belief as a statement of fact. From my perspective, a more appropriate discourse from you might instead say: “In my experience, DOS-based imaging is highly reliable. For reasons X, Y, and Z, I am speculating that Windows-based imaging is less reliable, but that may not be the case.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge no one has been arguing that Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging – only that the former is not necessarily less reliable than the latter: and, truth be told, the reality is most likely that both are essentially equally reliable.

To the general forum community, I encourage you to ask these questions:

Could it be that the manufacturers of Windows-based imaging products simply have not achieved the elevated state of technical enlightenment experienced by those who only use DOS-based imaging, and are therefore ignorant of the wisdom of using DOS-based imaging?

Could it be that the manufacturers of Windows-based imaging products are today knowingly and willfully promoting and selling an imaging solution which is less reliable than the product it replaced, and in the process risking their brand reputation?

Could it be that the enterprises that have adopted Windows-based imaging for the backup and recovery of their critical servers and their PCs are all mistaken in their belief concerning the reliability of the approach?

Could it be that the growing population of individual users of Windows-based imaging are misguided in their expectation that they have a highly reliable backup?

Be honest: now, doesn’t it at least seem a tiny bit unlikely the above statements are collectively true? Doesn’t this at least generate reasonable doubt on the hypothesis that Windows-based imaging is less reliable than DOS-based imaging to a meaningfully important degree?

Well, maybe all the individual PC users, all the professional programmers at Symantec and Acronis, and all the enterprises using Windows-based imaging are defective in their estimation of the reliability achieved by this technology. And, maybe the small cohort of DOS-based imaging advocates are right. It could be the case - but, the preponderance of argument suggests that it is not reasonable to assume that it is the case.

On average, I either create or restore images at least once/day. (I maintain lots of computers, and also do lots of software testing where being able to restore to pre-test condition is invaluable. I also let my kids throw their computers at Napster and Kazaa, which means they have to be restored to virus-free condition frequently.) Some days I won't do any, but other days I'll do a dozen restores. I suppose that puts me somewhat over 1000+ overall.

I'm probably more cautious than the average person, but I've never had an imaging failure. Zero. Not counting human error, I've had one PartitionMagic failure in 11 years. (As an aside, it just blows me away how many people expect to be able to use PartitonMagic from within Windows to move or resize their Windows partition!)

I can't give you personal experience on Windows-based imaging as I don't use it myself. My only experience has been cleaning up messes when friends/clients get themselves into trouble--perhaps 20 cases overall over the years. In most of those cases, the person had been using the Windows interface of a DOS-based version.

IMHO, the jury is still out on hot-imaging. After all, despite the version number, it is a new product. I feel it's better than the older pseudo-Windows versions, but can't imagine how it could be better than my experience with DOS-based imaging. (Except for device support, which is the DOS versions' Achilles Heel.)

"If 2003 told me "Hey, I'm about to generate computer.g01, and you already have a computer.g01, is it okay to overwrite?" and paused for my input, I wouldn't be upset about it."

odeen, just as a point of technical clarification, it's DOS that truncates the filename, not Ghost. In pure DOS, even if you do something basic like "copy sample.txt computer25.txt", DOS quietly truncates it to 8.3 format and doesn't call it an error. That's the way DOS has always worked (at least as far back as DOS 2.10, which is as far as my experience goes).

If you were using the DOS interface of v2003, you could have typed "computer25.gho" for the filename, Ghost wouldn't call it an error because DOS doesn't call it an error, but you would have been warned that you were about to overwrite. Not because Ghost checks the filename--it's passing 10.3 to DOS, DOS quietly truncates to 8.3, and tells Ghost "Cool. By the way, can I overwrite?" So Ghost relays the question to you. Along the way, nobody tells you it's gonna truncate, but it does warn you you're about to overwrite.

Unfortunately, from the Windows interface, the DOS operation is scripted in order to eliminate user feedback while in DOS. Ghost doesn't know it's about to overwrite because it has always counted on DOS to tell it if that's gonna happen, but DOS is bound and gagged because it's scripted.

So your grievance is entirely legitimate. If the makers of Ghost are gonna tack on a Windows interface, the user has a legitimate right to expect that Windows filenames are acceptable because ... well, the user is in WINDOWS! Ghost's Windows interface bears an extra burden of responsibility to predict what will happen when it goes to DOS. It cannot (well, should not) rely on the operating system to warn it. Since the Ghost task is being scripted in Windows, the operating system doesn't know LFNs will get truncated because Windows doesn't know Ghost plans to reboot into DOS to do its work.

So, I think you're basically right. However, I prefer to differentiate--Ghost 2003 isn't broken, only the Windows interface is.

"My intention is not to be rude, but isn’t this a rather shallow point-of-view?"

Well, it's certainly a point of view, altho I wouldn't call it "shallow".

You are not entitled, however, to assert your belief as a statement of fact.

Where am I asserting my opinion as fact? On the first page of the Ghost guide, where I talk about Ghost 9, I say it's "controversial". That means there are other opinions (controversy). And I say *why* it's controversial (hot imaging). I go on to say: "many (including myself) feel that imaging a live operating system introduces risks that are better avoided by using the original Ghost product (v2003)". Notice the word "feel". Feel = opinion. Nowhere do I spout my beliefs as gospel. If you've read many any of the guides, you know I'm releuctant to do that.

I also said, "I feel Ghost v2003 is more reliable than Ghost 9." Then immediately stipulated that "Some disagree." .. and linked to your comments. I also linked to this very thread so readers could see for themselves where the contentions lie.

"

For reasons X, Y, and Z, I am speculating that Windows-based imaging is less reliable, but that may not be the case."

Is this not what I have done?

"

Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge no one has been arguing that Windows-based imaging is more reliable than DOS-based imaging – only that the former is not necessarily less reliable than the latter: and, truth be told, the reality is most likely that both are essentially equally reliable."

Well, now you're guilty of your own criticisms of me. You used the word "truth" in your statement "both are equally reliable". I never did that. I stated my feelings and gave my reasons for them. I never used the word "truth" when discussing my position. And BTW - I think you're wrong about them being equally reliable.

Could it be that the manufacturers of Windows-based imaging products simply have not achieved the elevated state of technical enlightenment experienced by those who only use DOS-based imaging, and are therefore ignorant of the wisdom of using DOS-based imaging?

I feel it has nothing to do with technical enlightenment, but rather profit margins. The DOS interface is intimidating to many. I can understand this. A Windows-interface makes imaging more user-friendly. Symantec et al can sell more units if people can figure out how to use the product easier. Does that mean it's more reliable? I don't think so. But will it make the bean-counters at Symantec happy? You betcha.

Dan, your success with DOS-based imaging is quite impressive: over 1,000 successful restores! In a similar vein, Radministrator reported about 24 - which is still very noteworthy.

Consider the following scenario. Suppose that hypothetically “John Smith” adds a post to this forum later today in which he reports successfully having created and restored 10,000 Windows-based images over the years (e.g., using products such as Drive Image 7.0, True Image 8.0, and Ghost 9.0) – an order of magnitude more than your own experience. Let’s assume that the post is both truthful and authentic.

Here’s my question. With this new information provided by “John,” would you now accept the thesis that Windows-based imaging is no less reliable than DOS-based imaging?

If the answer is “yes,” then welcome to the team!

If the answer is “no,” then I wonder why your (or the Radministrator’s) lower quantity of successful DOS-based image restores would be used as evidence of (or an argument for) the superior reliability of DOS-based images over Windows-based images.

This is an example of what I previously labeled “The Personal Use Argument.” It is indeed interesting, but it is not relevant to supporting or defeating the hypothesis that Windows-based imaging is more or less reliable than DOS-based imaging.

For however many successful DOS-based restores that can be documented, I suspect that it could be matched by an equally large number of Window-based restores (although, admittedly, no such dataset exists). As a consequence, such comparisons do not help resolve the question of whether Windows-based imaging is more or less reliable than DOS-based imaging.

Your post, Dan, does add credence to the (already acknowledged) viewpoint that DOS-based imaging is reliable. I don’t believe, however, that this viewpoint is being challenged. And, certainly, no one is claiming that Windows-based imaging is more reliable – only that it is not necessarily less reliable.

Uh, on the oft-repeated question of whether the Corporate version of Ghost is still based upon the original Ghost software, or whether that too is now based on Drive Image (like the Home-user version), can you comment? Are you avoiding the question because it *is* still based on the Binary Research version, or do you simply not know?

I suspect it *is* still base on the original Binary Research product because Corporations demand more RELIABILITY than the average home user, and Symantec doesn't feel comfortable marketing Drive Image to corporations. (And indeed, I feel this is a wise decision, for I too would not be comfortable).

You make it sound like there is no data at all on the subject of reliability of Drive Image vs Ghost. While there is no *compiled* database, I've read *hundreds* of threads over the years on the subject (making it my business to stay informed), and the general consensus is that Ghost is far more RELIABLE than Drive Image.

Again, I feel Symantec is sacrificing RELIABILITY for Ease-of-use (to drive $ales). I don't fault them for this. It's the right thing to do for a business enterprise that needs to make a profit. I merely think the end user should know what they're sacrificing when they use Ghost 9 (Drive Image), Windows-based imaging software.

Here's where we disagree: you say Windows-based imaging & DOS-based imaging are equally reliable. We say DOS-based imaging is logically & experientially more reliable than Windows-based imaging (cuz the O/S is dormant while the image is being created & for reasons previously mentioned).